A Public Interest Litigation (PIL) has been filed against Chief Justice of India (CJI) Chandrachud before the National Human Rights Commission. The PIL challenges a recent order by CJI Chandrachud, arguing that it sets a negative precedent and violates fundamental constitutional rights. The petitioner, moved to the Supreme Court and High Courts Litigants’ Association, asserts that the order could prejudice citizens in their litigations. It calls for a reassessment of the order and seeks legal remedies to address the alleged violation of rights.
New Delhi: A Public Interest Litigation (PIL) has been filed (Diary No. 3046/IN/2024) before the National Human Rights Commission, challenging Chief Justice of India (CJI) Chandrachud’s recent order. The PIL, initiated by the Supreme Court and High Courts Litigants’ Association, asserts that the order sets a detrimental precedent, potentially prejudicing citizens in their litigations and violating the fundamental Constitutional Rights of Shri. Anil Masih and similarly situated individuals.
READ ALSO: Gautam Gambhir’s Defamation Case Against Punjab Kesari Moves to Mediation
Leading the legal charge are prominent advocates, including Adv. Nilesh Ojha, National President of the Indian Bar Association, and Adv. Ishwarlal Agarwal, President of the Supreme Court Lawyers Association. The PIL is supported by approximately 1000 lawyers expected to be present during the hearing.
READ ALSO: LexisNexis Case | Delhi High Court: Subscription to Legal Database Does Not Constitute Copyright Transfer
The prayers in the PIL reads thus: –
(i) Record a finding in view of law laid down in the case of Ram Deo Chauhan v. Bani Kanta Das, (2010) 14 SCC 209 and as per Section 18(3) of Human Rights Protection Act, 1993 that the order dated 20.02.2024 passed by the Bench of Hon’ble Supreme Court headed by Ld. CJI D.Y. Chandrachud, Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice Manoj Mishra thereby calling Sh. Anil Masih to show cause about initiation of action under section 340 of Cr.P.C. is against the provisions of law and binding precedents and it had violated the fundamental rights under Article 14, 20 & 21 of the Constitution of India and therefore Central Government is bound to pay interim compensation to Sh. Anil Masih in view of law & ratio laid down in the case of Ramesh Lawrence Maharaj Vs. Attorney-General of Trinidad and Tobago, [1978] 2 WLR 902, S. Nambi Narayanan v. Siby Mathews, (2018) 10 SCC 804, Walmik Bobde vs State of Maharashtra 2001 ALL MR (Cri.)1731 etc.
(ii) Direct Attorney General for India or Solicitor General to file Contempt Petition under section 2 (b), 12, 16 of Contempt of Courts Act 1971 r/w Article 129, 142 of the Constitution of India before Supreme Court against Ld. CJI D.Y. Chandrachud & Justices Sh. J.B. Pardiwala and & Sh. Manoj Mishra for their act of Contempt of binding precedents.
(iii) Issue directions as per law & ratio laid down in the case of Ram Deo Chauhan v. Bani Kanta Das, (2010) 14 SCC 209 thereby directing Attorney General or Registrar of NHRC or Solicitor General to file petition before Hon’ble Supreme Court for recall of unlawful order dated 20.02.2024 passed by the Bench of Ld. CJI because Supreme Court had clearly laid down in the case of State of Orissa Vs. Mamta Mohanty (2011) 3 SCC 436 & Municipal Corpn. of Greater Mumbai v. Pratibha Industries Ltd., (2019) 3 SCC 203 that to perpetuate error is no heroism and Judges are bound to correct their mistakes by recalling unlawful orders and as being Judges of Court of record they are bound to keep their record correct and according to law.
(iv) Direct Attorney General for India or any other authority to make representation to Hon’ble Supreme Court of India for taking immediate action of withdrawal of work from Ld. CJI D. Y. Chandrachud and forwarding reference for his impeachment by conducting enquiry under supervision of hon’ble Justice Sanjeev Khanna as per procedure under ‘In-House-Procedure’ detailed in the case of Additional District and Sessions Judge ‘X’ Vs. Registrar General (2015) 4 SCC 91;
(v) Direct Home Ministry & Law Ministry of Union of India to give directions to central investigating agencies like CBI, CVC, IB, RAW to investigate and take legal action according to law regarding allegations made in the present petition;
(vi) Direct Bar Council of India to take appropriate and strict action against Sr. Adv. Abhishek Manu Singhavi and others who are party to such conspiracy in obtaining illegal order which has violated the fundamental constitutional rights of the Presiding Officer Sh. Anil Masih;
(vii) Direct Attorney General for India or any other authority to make representation to Hon’ble Supreme Court of India for taking decision of withdrawal of Senior counsel designation of Adv. Abhishek Manu Singhavi.
(viii) Pass any other order which this Hon’ble Court deems fit & proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.
Key Arguments in the PIL:
- Violation of Section 340 of Cr.P.C.: The PIL argues against the requirement of a show cause notice before proceedings under Section 340 of Cr.P.C. It contends that this practice not only contradicts binding precedents but also infringes on the accused’s Constitutional Rights under Article 20(3) and 21.
- Overruling of Precedent: The PIL cites the overruling of the case of Sharad Pawar Vs. Jagmohan Dalmiya (2010) 15 SCC 290 by the Full bench of the Supreme Court in the case of State of Punjab v. Jasbir Singh, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1240, declaring it as bad law.
- Prayers in the PIL: The PIL seeks various remedies, including a finding that the order violates established law, the filing of a Contempt Petition against CJI Chandrachud and other justices, and a recall of the order. Additionally, it urges investigations by central agencies and actions against those involved in the alleged conspiracy.
- Allegations of Legal Malice: The petitioner argues that the order is an act of legal malice, asserting that no defense of mistake or good faith is applicable to CJI Chandrachud and other justices. It cites relevant sections of the Indian Penal Code and previous Supreme Court decisions to support this claim.
- Double Standards and Impeachment Calls: The PIL highlights instances of double standards by CJI Chandrachud and calls for his impeachment, alleging misuse of Supreme Court machinery for unauthorized purposes. It also underscores the need for disciplinary action against Sr. Adv. Abhishek Manu Singhavi and others involved in the alleged conspiracy
- The PIL presents a comprehensive critique of CJI Chandrachud’s order, alleging constitutional violations, contempt of binding precedents, and a larger pattern of judicial misconduct. As the legal community rallies behind the cause, the case is poised to have far-reaching implications on the interpretation and application of criminal procedure in India.
[READ THE PIL COPY]
